Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brimstone (wrestler) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brimstone (wrestler)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Almost all references link back to the wrestler's personal pages, or youtube videos with 1,000 hits. Mentions of comicbooks, clothing lines, or books which appear notable bring up nothing on google. Comic was apparently never made, last update was 2007. Nothing on biography or clothing line except announcements on Brimestone's personal site. As a pro-wrestler he never worked with anyone notable, or for any notable company (none have their own WP page) during his brief career. Highlight of wrestling career was being ring-crew at one TNA TV taping. Highlight of acting career was one episode of Sesame Street as a child. Other career highlights seem to be attending events with minor celebrities, then putting that news on his website and MySpace page. BoosterBronze (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator originally left his text at the bottom of the first AfD. I have reverted that and created this page. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's quite notable, the article is well sourced, he has wrestle for notable wrestling organizations (but not WWE, maybe that's why he is famous only among the wrestling fans), and the article is well written. Jeangabin (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject seems to meet the Wikipedia criteris for notability. The article is well sourced, and fairly well written. While I think it could use a little clean-up, I don't think that's grounds for deletion. -Fall Of Darkness (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In agreeing with the other users, there seems to be more than enough notability especially compared to many other wrestling biography articles on wiki. The article is well sourced and he seems to have done more with himself than just wrestling. RingWars2007 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an outside non-wrestling fan, I say it should be kept. Clearly by the number of ref's, some of which I checked and the seem reliable, his notability can be well established. The article is extremly well sourced (one of the best sourced articles I have ever seen). It was a unanimous keep the first time around, and should be kept. Maybe a copy-edit to clean it up a little, but other then that I see no problems. --NavyBlue84 15:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close A very expansive article which is very well referenced. The references are not what BoosterBronze is claiming they are. Some formatting and clean up would be done over the course of time. This article should not ever be here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Why was this even nominated for deletion? Get Dumb 12:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep I agree 100 percent with Punk! RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.